Cricket 1901

A p r i l 18, 1901. CRICKET: A WfcEKLY REOORl) OF TflE GAME. 69 may be argued that it would be im­ possible to declare eleven men as Halifax Cup players, on account of constantly occurring changes in the make-up of some of the Halifax elevens, but there could be no difficulty in declaring say seven or even eight (preferably the latter number), and prohibiting these men from competing for the Philadelphia Cup. Another difficulty, and one not so easy of solution, was the monotony of playing against the same men so often in the Halifax Cup matches. W ith but four clubs entered, and Germantown, although having two elevens in the field, being allowed the privilege of interchanging their men in the two elevens, it was undoubtedly a drawback to have such a long schedule. The need of at least one, and, if possible, three new clubs in the Halifax Cnp competition was clearly shown. It is not to be gathered from this that The Cricketer is opposed to a long schedule, for it iB our earnest belief that the competitions for the cups this year were more keen than ever before. But the opinion was freely expressed among the active players that the same faces were seen too often, and that it would add new life and interest if only there were additional clubs entered in the competition. As said above, the solution of this problem is not an easy one. A t present none of the smaller clubs is of sufficient strength to justify including it among the Halifax Cup teams. There is one solution, however, and though it is rather radical, it could be carried out. This is to have Merion place two elevens in the Halifax Cup competition, and thus be on the same level with Germantown. Certainly the Haverfordians are strong enough to do this, for they have a very large number of players to draw from. I f this were done it m ight be arranged to keep the two elevens separate and distinct, and not interchangeable. This would, of course, have to be the case with German­ town’s tw o elevens also. This plan has worked with good effect in New Y ork in two different instances, and was even carried a step further, in that the two elevens of the same club played each other, the same as they would an outside club. “ Another plan, and a very radical change it would be, is to enter an eleven of English residents in the competition. They could certainly turn out a very strong eleven, and would make the other clubs work their hardest for victory. “ Still another subject for legislation is the subject of umpires. W ith so many of the professionals competing in the Philadelphia Cup, it was necessary to gather a new staff of umpires, and com ­ plaint has been heard on all sides about incompetent umpiring in very many of the matches. Undoubtedly some of this was well founded, and equally true is it that some of the complaints were greatly exaggerated. It would be well for the committee, however, to consult the captains of the various elevens in regard to the different men who umpired this year before including them in the staff for next season.” © o m j s p o n U n u e . The Editor does not hold himself responsible for the opinions o f his correspondents. THE PROPOSED NEW LAW . To the Editor of C r ic k e t . S i r ,— I have recently received your issue for February, and I observe in it a notice that at the Annual General Meeting of the M.C.C. on May 1 next, a proposal will be submitted by the Committee for the alteration of the present law relating to “ leg before wicket.” As an old cricketer of more than forty years’ experience, and one who even now occasionally takes part in the game, I sincerely trust that there will be found at the meeting a sufficient number of members to vote and prevent a change which I am certain will be seriously detri­ mental to the best interests of the game. The question was agitated without effect a few years ago, and I was in hopes that it was dead and buried. I presume that the object with which it has been resuscitated is to try and check the ever-increasing long scores which are now so common. A more un­ satisfactory or inefficacious way of doing this I cannot conceive. The result will certainly not be to diminish scoring, but merely to foster and encourage slow play, of which even now we have too many instances. What batsman will ever dare to move his leg across the wicket to play or cut an off ball, with the prospect of its breaking back and keeping low, and his being to a certainty “ l.b.w .” ? Every one will let off balls severely alone, and simply play to cover his wicket from a break-back. There m ight have been some excuse for the changes at the time, when deliberate “ le g g in g ” was in fashion, and one saw men over after over using their pads instead of their bats to guard the wicket, but I am glad to think that thiB practice is now greatly discoun­ tenanced, and when I was in England last summer I saw very little of it. I f the object of the promoters of the change iB to encourage bowlers, then I say the advantage to be gained is wholly disproportionate to the evil which will be effected. The only bowlers who will possibly gain b y it are the few who have a leg break, in which case it is more difficult for the batsman to get his legs out of the way than it is with a break from the off. But the number of these bowlers is at present so insignificant that to legislate on their behalf in so drastic a manner is like using a steam hammer to crush a nut. Now, sir, I am as strongly opposed to the gigantic scores of the present day as anyone can be. It seems to me that any score much over 250 is a “ weariness to the flesh,” not only of the unfortunate bowlers and fielders but of the spectators, any of them at all events who have any appreciation of the finer points of the game. What can be the pleasure of seeing batsmen hit fours and fives in endless succession, when the bow ling has lost all fire and sting and the fieldsmen are so fagged they can only slouch after the ball P But in attempting to check this evil, let us not do a greater one and make the game slow, and therefore uninteresting, in, if possible, a worse way. Let us try and find out what are the real causes of the present long scoring and the large number of drawn matches. I do not believe the existing rule of “ leg before wicket ” to be one of them, but I do believe the follow ing to be princi­ pally responsible:— 1. Slovenly fielding and the frequency o f dropped catches. 2. The artificial and unnatural pre­ paration o f the wickets. 3. The amount of time which is cut to waste during matches. With regard to fielding, I was greatly struck during my visit to England last year, when i saw a great deal of first- class cricket at Lord’s, the Oval, Brighton, and elsewhere, with the slackness of some of the teams, and in almost all cases with the number of comparatively easy catches which were missed. There were of course many brilliant exceptions, but these were only a proof of the rule. In second-class cricket the “ butter- fingeredness ” (if I may coin the word) was naturally much more striking and general. Now that batting has so greatly improved and developed, good fielding and catching become more and more essential. If, as often happens, a fine batBman is missed twice before he has got 30 he is pretty certain to give no more chances till he has made his “ cen­ tury,” and it then generally depends upon his fitness and “ condition” how long he will go on. As to the grounds, I entirely agree with the excellent remarks of “ Old Harro­ vian” in your January number. The manner in which wickets are prepared now -a-days on most of the big county grounds is anomalous and absurd. They are so beaten down and hardened, and I believe in some cases even covered with an artificial mixture of some kind, that the natural difference of the soil and the elasticity of the turf are entirely nullified and removed. Such a wicket as that on which the Gentlemen v Players match at Lord’s last year was played was a perfect marvel of ingenuity and skill on the part of the ground-man, but to my mind it was fatal to the interest of the game. After something like a thousand runs had been made upon it, it was playing better at the end of the match than at the beginning. I hope it will not be thought that I wish to go back to the old days of L ord’s, when I have often seen the ball fly from the pitch over batsman’s and wicket-keeper’s heads into long-stop’s bands, but I do plead for rational wickets of firm, well-rolled turf, not “ made ” grounds with scarcely any grass upon them. My third point, to which I think drawn matches are mainly due, is the amount of time now wasted. On account of the exigencies of travelling it may not be possible to begin before twelve on the first day of a match, but there can be no reason for not commencing at eleven a.m. the second and third days. Then, during the months of June and July at least, the stumps ought not to be drawn before